Conduit 2 Gets Amazonbombed
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
And that´s why i dont bother reading metascores! I prefer to read a couple of reviews from a few reliable sources and that´s it! These "amazonbomb" attacks do not lend credibility to the industry.
Here's the thing, kids. 15 one-star ratings aren't many except when a game only has 31 ratings to begin with, and then suddenly it represents half your votes and has a serious impact on the average rating of your game. Same with four one-star votes for Murdock's book; that was 40 percent of his vote. Dropped his rating significantly.
As for whether or not any of this is newsworthy, if you don't find the idea of game devs abusing Amazon's rating system (or any other similar system) to fuck over someone who gave their game a bad review, then I'd have to say you deserve whatever sort of useless, dysfunctional system you end up with.
As for whether or not any of this is newsworthy, if you don't find the idea of game devs abusing Amazon's rating system (or any other similar system) to fuck over someone who gave their game a bad review, then I'd have to say you deserve whatever sort of useless, dysfunctional system you end up with.
I am not sure I understand why the amazonbombing is such a problem. A company did something wrong, it dishonestly manipulated reviews for retribution/financial gain. The reviewing community then got angry and dinged the companies reputation by downvoting company products. This seems like a perfectly reasonable response.
Can anyone explain to me what is so wrong about this?
Edit: I also just saw an article on Ars Technica [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/all-your-reviews-are-belong-to-us-medical-justice-vs-patient-free-speech.ars] about dentist (one of several) who is making his patients sign away their right to post reviews about him. I checked his profile on Yelp and sure enough lots of one star ratings starting on the date the article was published. I should note that all of those reviews were explicit about the censorship being the reason for the low rating. If people to downvote they should be clear about the reason but otherwise I stand by by my question.
Can anyone explain to me what is so wrong about this?
Edit: I also just saw an article on Ars Technica [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/all-your-reviews-are-belong-to-us-medical-justice-vs-patient-free-speech.ars] about dentist (one of several) who is making his patients sign away their right to post reviews about him. I checked his profile on Yelp and sure enough lots of one star ratings starting on the date the article was published. I should note that all of those reviews were explicit about the censorship being the reason for the low rating. If people to downvote they should be clear about the reason but otherwise I stand by by my question.
15 people voted one star on a really, really bad game.HerbertTheHamster said:
This is bigger than PSN going down.
This does seem like weaksauce if it was an attempt at bombing Conduit 2. More likely 15 people got around to telling the world their true opinion of Conduit 2.
So, we should move on from conduit 2?Andy Chalk said:
at least if the 15 one star ratings were given out by people who bought the game it means that 15 more people bought conduit 2
The fact High Voltage was petty enough to 'reviewbomb' Murdock's book out of spite means i'm quite frankly glad the internet has retaliated. A developer should know better than to trash a reviewer for the simple fact he didn't like their product. No bloody sympathy.
It's like when Jim Sterling gets abuse because he gives 'popular' games low scores. For example, he gave The Witcher 2 a 6 / 10 because of problems he had with the game, and yet people trash him in the comments because it's "not in line with what metacritic says". Heaven forbid the man should have an opinion of his own.
It's like when Jim Sterling gets abuse because he gives 'popular' games low scores. For example, he gave The Witcher 2 a 6 / 10 because of problems he had with the game, and yet people trash him in the comments because it's "not in line with what metacritic says". Heaven forbid the man should have an opinion of his own.
That's an easy and sweeping position to take but I don't think you can seriously suggest (or expect to be taken serious if you do seriously suggest) that the typical user-submitted "review" offers the same credibility as something published by a well-established, respected and "professional" site. It's not a matter of differing opinions - I disagree with the majority of game reviews I read and have for years - but a question of professionalism and legitimate criticism which the average off-the-cuff forum post or star-click simply doesn't bring to the table.qwerty19411 said:
When it comes to reviews, one has to go father and farther back into the Internet backwoods to get away from the marketing forces and hear people just speaking their minds. However, even on Amazon, if somebody gives a reasonable accounting of a games strengths and weaknesses, I'll tend to take that as an informed opinion.
All-good reviews I figure probably come from the producers of the game. All-bad reviews are probably from the fanboys of a competing game. Even the "all-good" reviews are now throwing in a little bit of critique to sound more genuine, but such critique usually doesn't have any teeth and is easy to spot.
Though, what is even more true is if a game stands the test of time--if a game is still loved by its fans a year from now. Since I have a rather large stack of games I bought on sale which are still unplayed, I can wait before picking up a new release to see how it pans out.
All-good reviews I figure probably come from the producers of the game. All-bad reviews are probably from the fanboys of a competing game. Even the "all-good" reviews are now throwing in a little bit of critique to sound more genuine, but such critique usually doesn't have any teeth and is easy to spot.
Though, what is even more true is if a game stands the test of time--if a game is still loved by its fans a year from now. Since I have a rather large stack of games I bought on sale which are still unplayed, I can wait before picking up a new release to see how it pans out.
There are several problems. High Voltage's action against Murdock implicitly puts pressure on all future reviewers who also have products available for sale elsewhere, because they know they could face retribution if the developer or publisher takes exception to the review. Regardless of what you think of their opinions, reviewers need to be able to operate independently of any external pressure, or else their reviews lose all credibility.puffenstuff said:
As for the public's Amazonbomb response, it's less odious but still problematic in that anyone going to the Conduit 2 site looking for legitimate opinions is going to come away empty-handed. Regardless of how bad Conduit 2 is, it's impossible to get an accurate read of public opinion when half the scores are simply the result of anger over something completely unrelated to the game itself. The whole system ends up meaningless and worthless as a result.
Maybe that sort of "you fuck with me, I fuck with you" is a perfectly reasonable response in the context of typical human behaviour, but that doesn't make it appropriate or beneficial to anyone.
.... from people who REALLY need drama in their life... they do stuff like this as passing time... and news keep on encouraging them to be a man/woman child, and giving them the attention they want... I think we all should just grow the hell up...